• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Snowden embraces American flag in WIRED photo shoot[W:511]

"Questions legality" doesn't mean much. We've seen how judges can be morons even at SC level.

Regardless, at the time of Snowden's treason, it was legal.

A new law or practice can not be considered legal with any finality until it is challenged in court and is ruled constitutional and otherwise legally valid. Until Snowden's revelations the practice was kept secret and there was no legitimate judicial approval. (FISA court decisions don't count)
 
Thats not the definition of treason.

It is one of the definitions. Snowden did not attempt to overthrow the government or kill the President. I have seen no convincing evidence that he aided our enemies and that was not his intent.
 
Whistle blowing procedures implemented by people that should be exposed as immoral criminals will never be effective.

The SEC has established a whistle blowing facility. This could be done for government.
 
Exposing the crimes of government is patriotism, NOT treason.

Informing citizens of methodical assaults on constitutional principles by the government is patriotism, not treason.

Elected and appointed officials violating the constitution, THAT is treason.

Of course the reporting of crimes is legitimate and even required. In as far as it applies to secret information the reporting should at first not be done in a global media campaign. Sorrily this is, what the man did. Even so, that would be something one could discuss excusing within bounds. #

What is inexcusable, is that he published data that does not show illegal doings but secret and legitimate activities in foreign lands. This has caused the nation severe financial, political and damage to national security. This is treason. And it must be punished harshly.
 
Of course the reporting of crimes is legitimate and even required. In as far as it applies to secret information the reporting should at first not be done in a global media campaign. Sorrily this is, what the man did. Even so, that would be something one could discuss excusing within bounds. #

What is inexcusable, is that he published data that does not show illegal doings but secret and legitimate activities in foreign lands. This has caused the nation severe financial, political and damage to national security. This is treason. And it must be punished
harshly.

So what you're saying is that as long as the government classifies its criminal activity as SECRET, it's OK.

Sorry Charlie, no can do. Sounds too much like Nixon to me.
 
So what you're saying is that as long as the government classifies its criminal activity as SECRET, it's OK.

Sorry Charlie, no can do. Sounds too much like Nixon to me.

That is not, what I said at all. And you know it.
 
That is not, what I said at all. And you know it.

Right, it should not be done in a global media campaign. I presume you mean it should be done within the system? He should have voiced his objections to his supervisor, right?

He did.

Read about Drake, Binney and others with the NSA who tried the same thing, to no avail.
 
The SEC has established a whistle blowing facility. This could be done for government.

A better analogy would be a whistle blower process for Bear Sterns.
 
Right, it should not be done in a global media campaign. I presume you mean it should be done within the system? He should have voiced his objections to his supervisor, right?

He did.

Read about Drake, Binney and others with the NSA who tried the same thing, to no avail.

You didn't get it again. There is a difference between publishing domestic breaches of the Constitution or law and publishing international security matters. Snowden did both. Had he only published the domestic things, we might talk about a certain legitimacy. In the case of the other material there can be no leniency, if we want to be at all rational.
 
You didn't get it again. There is a difference between publishing domestic breaches of the Constitution or law and publishing international security matters. Snowden did both. Had he only published the domestic things, we might talk about a certain legitimacy. In the case of the other material there can be no leniency, if we want to be at all rational.

No sir, not in the least persuasive.

Exposing the criminal actions of government, the treasonous actions of government, is NEVER a crime. It is always the patriotic thing to do. :peace
 
No sir, not in the least persuasive.

Exposing the criminal actions of government, the treasonous actions of government, is NEVER a crime. It is always the patriotic thing to do. :peace

While you might have a point, where there is clear and present criminal behavior by government (personell?) is involved,
where there is none or such of lesser gravity as was the case in the nsa spying activities, there can be no excuse or clemency. If, as Snowden did, the security and wellbeing of the country is severely harmed, punishment must be harsh. After all, it is worse than individual crimes like homicide.
 
No sir, not in the least persuasive.

Exposing the criminal actions of government, the treasonous actions of government, is NEVER a crime. It is always the patriotic thing to do. :peace

If Snowden were doing only that which affects the citizens of this country then I'd say 'yeah, sure'...But that isn't all he is doing now is it?
 
No sir, not in the least persuasive.

Exposing the criminal actions of government, the treasonous actions of government, is NEVER a crime. It is always the patriotic thing to do. :peace

hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. You can name him patriot of the century for all I care.

The point is, when you light a match, throw it into home, and watch the home burn, don't have the idiotic temerity to then ask to be LET BACK IN the house after the fire has been extinguished. And don't WHINE about how unfair it is.
You can talk until you turn blue, but you are not getting invited back in. so sorry
 
While you might have a point, where there is clear and present criminal behavior by government (personell?) is involved,
where there is none or such of lesser gravity as was the case in the nsa spying activities, there can be no excuse or clemency. If, as Snowden did, the security and wellbeing of the country is severely harmed, punishment must be harsh. After all, it is worse than individual crimes like homicide.

I'm not sure I get your point.

Are you saying that the NSA violating the Fourth Amendment on a massive scale is not important, a "lesser gravity" offense?
 
If Snowden were doing only that which affects the citizens of this country then I'd say 'yeah, sure'...But that isn't all he is doing now is it?

Hopefully (but not likely) what Snowden did will cause the government to change its ways, and operate in a manner that follows the Supreme Law of the Land. Hopefully, but not likely, what Snowden did will cause the government to operate in a way that complies with "no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause".

Hopefully, but not likely. Constitutional governance is not a reality in this country today.

Snowden has raised the awareness of the american citizens, but my bet is that it will NOT change the way the government operates.
 
I'm not sure I get your point.

Are you saying that the NSA violating the Fourth Amendment on a massive scale is not important, a "lesser gravity" offense?

No. I said that what nsa and cia were doing in the international theater was mostly completely legal under US law. It was unnecessary to publish it in any event as the domestic information would have created enough domestic dynamic. Publishing that info might have allowed clemency. As he published the foreign material clemency forbids itself.
 
No. I said that what nsa and cia were doing in the international theater was mostly completely legal under US law. It was unnecessary to publish it in any event as the domestic information would have created enough domestic dynamic. Publishing that info might have allowed clemency. As he published the foreign material clemency forbids itself.

What a bunch of gobbly-gook.

But, that is to be expected when a person is attempting to rationalize and support criminal government actions. :roll:
 
hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. You can name him patriot of the century for all I care.

The point is, when you light a match, throw it into home, and watch the home burn, don't have the idiotic temerity to then ask to be LET BACK IN the house after the fire has been extinguished. And don't WHINE about how unfair it is.
You can talk until you turn blue, but you are not getting invited back in. so sorry

Exposing a government agency violating the highest law of the land, IS NOT comparable to arson. And it had the very desired effect of producing bi-partisan legislation to shore up the forth amendment and reign in the NSA. You should be thanking Snowden, and not diminishing him.
 
I am not sure I know what you mean with that.

Reporting illegal or other wrongful activities to the same people who (probably) authorized it, or have an interest in keeping it secret, is not effective. There needs to an independent body with no conflict of interest to report problems to for a whistleblowing process to be effective.
 
What a bunch of gobbly-gook.

But, that is to be expected when a person is attempting to rationalize and support criminal government actions. :roll:

No rationalizing on my part. But there are lots of people that are not willing or maybe capable of diferentiating, once they hate.
 
Reporting illegal or other wrongful activities to the same people who (probably) authorized it, or have an interest in keeping it secret, is not effective. There needs to an independent body with no conflict of interest to report problems to for a whistleblowing process to be effective.

Do you really not understand the difference in the categories of information involved.
(1) Publicly reporting cases of domestic breaches of constitutional rights.
(2) Publicly reporting legal information mining in the international theater.
In case (1) you might have my attention and we could negotiate a sentence. In case (2) he deserves the highest possible punishment. Think Madoff and Noriega as examples of the quality of his crime.
 
No rationalizing on my part. But there are lots of people that are not willing or maybe capable of diferentiating, once they hate.

I don't hate anybody, but I am very familiar with the US Constitution, and I am perceptive enough to know when the government is violating it.

"...and no Warrant shall issue but upon probable cause..." is fairly plain English, and not difficult to understand. English is not my secondary language. :peace

Further, I understand the dynamic that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
 
I don't hate anybody, but I am very familiar with the US Constitution, and I am perceptive enough to know when the government is violating it.

"...and no Warrant shall issue but upon probable cause..." is fairly plain English, and not difficult to understand. English is not my secondary language. :peace

Further, I understand the dynamic that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

As far as you are on illegal domestic and I have said this before, you may have a point. But he did severe damage by publishing international and some domestic information on legal activities. That must be punished with the full force of the judicial system. And you have said not one word that points to a reason for clemency on those charges.
 
As far as you are on illegal domestic and I have said this before, you may have a point. But he did severe damage by publishing international and some domestic information on legal activities. That must be punished with the full force of the judicial system. And you have said not one word that points to a reason for clemency on those charges.

Considering that the Global War On Terror is in fact a Fraud Of Epic Proportions, I don't find your post persuasive in the least. Not valid.

As the rules of American Jurisprudence states, fraud vitiates everything. The presence of fraud renders a legal action invalid. Fraud in any form cancels any legal document.

When the government commits fraud against the people, the legal contract has been severed.

I understand that reality does not frequently comport with the law, but the law is quite clear about fraud.
 
Back
Top Bottom